nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Is a deep geological repository (DGR) for IGNACE a good idea?

I would say that the most important issue – and one that is totally disregarded by NWMO – is the inordinate extra cost (of about $500 million) of shipping used fuel to Ignace rather than Teeswater or some more southerly location. The mass transfer of used fuel from locations such as Bruce, Pickering and Darlington to the township of Ignace will involve dozens of 50-ton trucks travelling up and down major roads, such as Highways 401, 400, 69 and 17, a total of 25,000 times between 2043 and 2068. This protracted activity adds up to a total highway travel time of over 200 years!

Frank Greening, 13 Jan 26

Questioning  the wisdom of NWMO’s plan for a used fuel DGR to be constructed near Ignace in Northern Ontario, in view of the issues presented below:

From the Project description document AMP-REP-05000-0211-R000

11. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM PRODUCTION CAPACITY OF THE PROJECT

An estimated 5.9 million bundles of used fuel will be processed in the UFPP over its operational lifetime of approximately 50 years (about 120,000 used fuel bundles per year). On average, per the current conceptual reference design, 10 used fuel containers (UFCs) are planned to be processed and placed in the repository each workday, or approximately 2,500 UFCs each year.

To achieve this throughput, the UFPP is likely to incorporate multiple processing lines. Based on annual shipping (receipt) assumptions, the maximum number of certified transportation packages received at the UFPP in any given year is estimated to be approximately 885, holding between 120 and 192 used fuel bundles in each certified transportation package. The UFPP is designed to receive and process up to five certified transportation packages each day.

I would say that the most important issue – and one that is totally disregarded by NWMO – is the inordinate extra cost (of about $500 million) of shipping used fuel to Ignace rather than Teeswater or some more southerly location. The mass transfer of used fuel from locations such as Bruce, Pickering and Darlington to the township of Ignace will involve dozens of 50-ton trucks travelling up and down major roads, such as Highways 401, 400, 69 and 17, a total of 25,000 times between 2043 and 2068. This protracted activity adds up to a total highway travel time of over 200 years!

Closely related to the issue of shipping costs, is the additional problem of the high probability of inclement weather along Highway 17 from November to March each year. It appears that NWMO’s approach to dealing with this issue is simply to limit used fuel shipments to Ignace to just 9 months per year. However, this is barely adequate, given the common occurrence of snow storms along Highway 17 from as early as October to as late as April each year. Indeed, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment states in reference to winter driving on Highway 17: “Expect snowfall amounts of 10 –15 cm; reduced visibility due to snow and blowing snow; icy and slippery surfaces, and quickly changing and deteriorating travel conditions”.

This clearly shows the severity of the winter weather for the township of Ignace, with heavy snowfall dominating the months from November to March. Interestingly, NWMO has stated – See NWMO Report APM-REP-00440-0209-R001, issued September 2021 – that moving used nuclear fuel by truck to Ignace would mean “two to three shipments a day for approximately nine months of the year”. It is not clear why NWMO stipulates shipments being made for only 9 months per year, but this is presumably to allow for three months of inclement weather.

However, as previously noted, meteorological data for Ignace indicate that heavy snow is possible for this region from November to March, which is five months, not three! In addition, one is left wondering what happens at the DGR site for the three months when there are no used fuel shipments. Indeed, this lack of shipments is inconsistent with NWMO’s assertion, previously noted in this email, that “10 used fuel containers (UFCs) are planned to be processed and placed in the repository each workday.  I would like someone to explain how this will happen over winter, when NWMO admits there will be no used fuel shipments for at least three months each year, (December, January and February?). What will workers at the used fuel packaging plant do when there are no UFC’s to process?

Highway 17 in Northern Ontario has earned a reputation for frequent accidents, particularly involving heavy trucks. In 2022, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) reported over 9,100 collisions involving large trucks across the province, with 71 fatalities — many occurring on routes like Highway 17.  Addressing the issues plaguing Highway 17 requires more than incremental fixes—it demands a transformative overhaul. Experts and residents alike stress the need for substantial investments to bring this critical corridor up to modern standards. Proposals extend far beyond doubling lanes or adding passing areas, emphasizing winter-specific design improvements, enhanced lane visibility, and the permanent operation of weigh stations with robust enforcement to eliminate unsafe vehicles. Rest stops must be expanded and maintained year-round to provide safe havens for drivers, particularly during extreme weather. Furthermore, the integration of advanced monitoring systems, including traffic cameras and real-time condition updates, is essential for proactive safety management of this Highway. Only through a comprehensive and bold approach can Highway 17 meet the safety, accessibility, and efficiency needs of the communities and industries it serves. Without such improvements to Highway 17, NWMO’s plan to build a DGR near Ignace is both reckless and potentially very dangerous!

NWMO’s nonchalant approach to the selection of a site for a used fuel DGR is deeply concerning. Just because the residents of a small northern Ontario town are willing to host a DGR does NOT make it the best possible option for Canada. And let’s remember that, once the site selection is made, it’s not just for a while, but in perpetuity! 

January 17, 2026 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Ontario Power Generation seeks rate increase for electricity from nuclear plants

Matthew McClearn, 13 Jan, 26 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-ontario-power-generation-rate-increase-application-electricity-nuclear

The Pickering Nuclear Generation Station in January, 2020. In November the Ontario government approved the $26.8-billion refurbishment of four aging reactors at the station.

Ontario Power Generation is seeking a near-doubling of payments it receives for electricity produced by its nuclear power plants, a request that could lead to surging power bills.

In a rate application submitted to the Ontario Energy Board in December, OPG requested payments of nearly $207 dollars per megawatt hour produced by its nuclear power stations beginning Jan. 1, 2027, roughly double what it received as recently as last year. It seeks similar amounts for each year through 2031.

OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly said the sought rates would cause a typical residential customer’s payments to rise by roughly 2.4 per cent annually in each of the next five years.

Ontario has generated roughly half of its power in recent years from its Darlington, Pickering and Bruce nuclear stations. (The latter is operated by private power producer Bruce Power and is not part of OPG’s application.) Energy Minister Stephen Lecce is pursuing an aggressive expansion of the reactor fleet to meet an expected surge in demand for electricity between now and mid-century, which includes plans to build large new multi-reactor stations.

Chelsea McGee, a spokesperson for Mr. Lecce, referred an interview request from The Globe and Mail to the OEB and OPG.

The requested payment increases require the board’s approval. OEB spokesperson Tom Miller said it would be inappropriate to comment on OPG’s application because it is before a panel of commissioners. Mr. Miller said it will be adjudicated later this year.

Made in Canada: Inside an urban Toronto facility making uranium fuel for CANDU reactors

OPG is entering a period of intense capital spending. Last year, it began constructing the first of four new small modular reactors at its Darlington station, with an estimated cost of $20.9-billion. OPG said that project accounts for about one-quarter of the sought payment increases.

Far more consequential, at 60 per cent of the payment increase, is the $26.8-billion refurbishment of four aging reactors at Pickering station. The government approved that overhaul in November; it’s expected to wrap up in the mid-2030s.

OPG is also spending to refurbish many of its hydroelectric stations.

“Every investment in the application has been carefully evaluated, planned prudently and designed to provide long-term value to Ontarians,” Mr. Kelly wrote in a statement.

Mark Winfield, a professor at York University’s environmental faculty, said that because OPG’s projects have been approved by the government, the OEB has little room to disallow the payment increases sought by the utility.

“They can’t really say no to OPG,” he said.

“The system runs by political fiat, and all the agencies are basically mandated to fulfill the minister’s will.”

Ontario to spend $1.5-billion on underwater electricity cable from nuclear plant to Toronto

Ontario’s residential electricity rates previously increased 29 per cent on Nov. 1. The OEB attributed those hikes to “higher-than-expected generation costs” as well as increased spending on conservation programs, but it provided few additional details. Those rate hikes were largely offset by a 23.5-per-cent increase in the Ontario Electricity Rebate, a taxpayer-funded instrument the government uses to provide relief on residential power bills.

The Globe twice requested interviews with OEB officials in December to explore the role rising nuclear costs played in the Nov. 1 rate increases. Mr. Miller denied those requests but agreed to answer questions by e-mail. The Globe sent questions to the OEB on Jan. 5, but had not received responses by late Monday.

A report by Power Advisory LLC, a consultancy that performed work for the OEB related to the Nov. 1 rate increases, attributed them partly to “higher-than-expected nuclear generation.” That report noted payments for OPG’s nuclear generation rose to $123.76 per megawatt hour in 2026, as compared with $111.61 per megawatt hour last year.

The current trajectory for power rates has attracted concern from the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, which represents industrial power users including automakers Ford Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp., and steel producers Stelco and ArcelorMittal Dofasco.

AMPCO president Brad Duguid said the province has no choice but to overhaul and expand its nuclear fleet – a decision he argued will preserve the provincial grid’s reliability. But he’s concerned that industrial power rates are already “skyrocketing” for AMPCO’s members – increases he mainly attributed to rising natural gas generation as reactors are taken offline for refurbishment.

“Over the next seven to 10 years, we’re seeing significant increases in the market energy rates to make up that difference,” he said.

“We’re talking about increases in the range of 165 per cent for the market rate over the next three years alone. That’s untenable. That’s an absolute threat to the competitiveness of our industrial sector and the hundreds of thousands of jobs it supports.”

Ottawa, Ontario pledge combined $3-billion for new nuclear reactors

Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, attributed the hikes directly to the government’s nuclear expansion and predicted the situation will only worsen.

“It’s just absurd to be investing in high-cost nuclear,” he said.

“It’s going to push up rates, make life less affordable for hard-working families and make Ontario’s businesses less competitive.”

York University’s Mr. Winfield said the government has four options to address the upward pressure on electricity rates. First, it can allow them to rise, but that would undermine affordability and could stall electrification of Ontario’s economy.

The government could also further increase subsidies such as the Ontario Energy Rebate. But at a total annual cost “of $8.5-billion per year, this has to be already at or near the limits of fiscal feasibility,” Mr. Winfield wrote in an e-mail.

Another option is to reconsider the province’s electricity plans to focus on lower-cost options. Finally, the government could conceal the additional costs as debt, a choice previous governments pursued.

Electricity rates are also rising sharply in many other jurisdictions across North America, including ones with little or no nuclear generation. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, average residential rates across the United States increased 5 per cent for the year ended Oct. 31, reaching nearly 18 US cents per kilowatt hour.

January 16, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

HOW ONTARIO KEEPS THE TRUE COST OF NUCLEAR POWER OFF YOUR HYDRO BILL

Toronto Star, MARCO CHOWN OVED CLIMATE CHANGE REPORTER, 11 Jan 2026, https://www.pressreader.com/article/282007563777540

Elec­tri­city prices in Ontario have long proven to be polit­ic­ally toxic.

Rapid increases between 2009 and 2016 con­trib­uted to the down­fall of the Lib­eral gov­ern­ments of Dalton McGuinty and Kath­leen Wynne.

Doug Ford and his Pro­gress­ive Con­ser­vat­ives were elec­ted on a pledge to bring hydro bills down, and the rapid increases have since ended — though it’s not because power is cheaper. The true costs are now invis­ible to the con­sumer.

For 15 years, Ontari­ans saw the cost of nuc­lear power on their hydro bills each month. Between 2002 and 2017, there was a line item called the “debt retire­ment charge” that enlis­ted every rate­payer to chip away at more than $20 bil­lion in debt left over from the split­up of Ontario Hydro — debt largely run up by con­struc­tion over­runs at the Dar­ling­ton nuc­lear plant, which was com­pleted in 1993. The nuc­lear debt was removed from bills in 2018 — but it didn’t dis­ap­pear. Instead, it was added onto the pro­vin­cial books, where it is now con­sidered part of the gen­eral pub­lic debt. As of last year, more than 30 years after Dar­ling­ton went online, there was still $11.9 bil­lion in debt remain­ing.

The province also brought in the Ontario Elec­tri­city Rebate, which sub­sid­izes power bills with tax­payer dol­lars. While the rebate was intro­duced under McGuinty, Ford recently nearly doubled it — with an estim­ated price tag of $8.5 bil­lion annu­ally — to absorb an almost 30 per cent hike to the price of elec­tri­city.

The Ford gov­ern­ment has blamed rate increases on the pre­vi­ous Lib­eral gov­ern­ment’s Green Energy Act, which paid a premium for renew­able energy in an effort to kick­start a domestic wind and solar industry. The domestic renew­ables man­u­fac­tur­ing sec­tor failed to take off in the face of com­pet­i­tion from China, but more than 33,000 renew­able projects remain on the grid at inflated prices on 20­year con­tracts. Today, these leg­acy con­tracts have pushed the cost of solar power up to the point that it’s the highest among all types of gen­er­a­tion in Ontario, when meas­ured by kilo­watt hour (kWh) of elec­tri­city pro­duced. Wind isn’t far behind.

But what the per kWh fig­ures hide is that renew­ables make up such a small pro­por­tion of the energy pro­duc­tion mix that they can­not be respons­ible for over­all rate increases, accord­ing to a Star ana­lysis of Ontario Energy Board and Inde­pend­ent Elec­tri­city Sys­tem Oper­ator data. Even though solar costs three­and­a­half times more than nuc­lear per kWh, it only accoun­ted for two per cent of the total cost of elec­tri­city in 2024 — too little to drive over­all cost increases. Nuc­lear, by con­trast, accoun­ted for 56 per cent of Ontario’s total cost of elec­tri­city last year. And while the costs of leg­acy renew­ables are inflated, they’re fixed or even going down as their con­tracts expire and have been renewed at 30 per cent less than they were paid pre­vi­ously.

In con­trast, nuc­lear costs keep going up. The refur­bish­ment of the Pick­er­ing plant will cost three times more per kWh than the refur­bish­ments of Dar­ling­ton and four times more than Bruce. The costs of these refur­bish­ments will start to be added to hydro bills when they return to ser­vice.

Because nuc­lear makes up such a large part of the elec­tri­city mix, even a little increase to the cost of nuc­lear will affect the price Ontari­ans pay for elec­tri­city — either via monthly bills or tax­payer funds.

January 14, 2026 Posted by | Canada, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Spend­ing big on nuc­lear

Ontario is invest­ing bil­lions into react­ors — even as the rest of the world turns to solar and wind. Is this the wrong bet?

Toronto Star, MARCO CHOWN OVED, 11 Jan 2026, https://www.pressreader.com/article/281865829856772

In the race to pre­pare for an elec­tri­fied future of AI, data centres, EVs and heat pumps, Ontario has placed a big bet on nuc­lear.

With more than $73 bil­lion com­mit­ted to build­ing new and refur­bish­ing old react­ors — and two more plants in the pipeline that could add tens of bil­lions more — Ontario tax­pay­ers are count­ing on nuc­lear energy to pay off for dec­ades to come.

Widely hailed for its abil­ity to provide massive amounts of stable, emis­sions­free power that the province will need to elec­trify the eco­nomy, nuc­lear has emerged as a solu­tion advoc­ates say is cru­cial to avoid the worst effects of cli­mate change — all while sup­port­ing a well­estab­lished local industry. A single nuc­lear plant can provide the same amount of power as tens of thou­sands of solar pan­els and wind tur­bines — even when the wind isn’t blow­ing, and the sun isn’t shin­ing.

“Nuc­lear brings a set of attrib­utes and char­ac­ter­ist­ics that you really can’t find with any other gen­er­at­ing source,” said Brendan Frank, Dir­ector of Policy and Strategy at Clean Prosper­ity, a cli­mate policy think tank. It’s large scale, [?] clean and reli­able with a small land foot­print, he says. “There’s a lot to like about nuc­lear.”

But the prom­ise of nuc­lear power is tempered by the poten­tial for peril.

Crit­ics say nuc­lear pro­ponents have never been able to address exist­ing react­ors’ sig­ni­fic­ant short­com­ings, includ­ing dec­ade­long con­struc­tion timelines, con­sist­ently large cost over­runs, and the tiny but nonzero risk of cata­strophic acci­dents. The cost con­sid­er­a­tions alone risk under­min­ing the fight against cli­mate change by mak­ing clean power more expens­ive than burn­ing fossil fuels.

“Baked right into the nuc­lear option is cent­ral­iz­a­tion, a reli­ance on tech­nical elites, the need for long­term stew­ard­ship and para­mil­it­ary secur­ity, a low tol­er­ance for fail­ure, and the accept­ance of unin­sur­able risks,” said Ralph Tor­rie, the head of research with Cor­por­ate Knights and a vet­eran energy ana­lyst.

And unlike nuc­lear oppon­ents of the 1980s, today’s crit­ics have a ready altern­at­ive in renew­able energy, which is being built at an unpre­ced­en­ted speed and scale all over the world. Last year, more than 90 per cent of new power brought online glob­ally has been wind and solar. Mean­while, the nuc­lear industry has been mired in a 25­year decline with more react­ors decom­mis­sioned than built, accord­ing to the Inter­na­tional Atomic Energy Agency.

Nuc­lear power is yes­ter­day’s tech­no­logy, the crit­ics say.


“Every dol­lar we spend on new nuc­lear plants or recon­di­tion­ing 20th­cen­tury nuc­lear steam gen­er­at­ors drives up the cost of build­ing a sus­tain­able energy sys­tem in Ontario and puts us fur­ther behind in the energy trans­ition that is a defin­ing fea­ture of suc­cess­ful 21st­cen­tury eco­nom­ies,” Tor­rie said.

In the search for cli­mate solu­tions, the debate over nuc­lear power is par­tic­u­larly acute. For pro­ponents, global warm­ing can­not be addressed without a nuc­lear renais­sance. For oppon­ents, nuc­lear is a trap that diverts resources from bet­ter solu­tions while com­mit­ting us for dec­ades to a tech­no­logy that has never lived up to its prom­ises.

And Ontario has already picked its side.

“We’re doub­ling down on nuc­lear,” Energy Min­is­ter Stephen Lecce told the Star in an inter­view.

“If you care about jobs for Cana­dians, if you care about an eth­ical sup­ply chain using a clean grid, not a coal­fired grid, if you care about human rights, the rule of law, fun­da­mental Cana­dian val­ues, and the eco­nomic advant­ages for the work­ers, for the women and men who work in this province, then you will unapo­lo­get­ic­ally defend and pro­mote Ontario’s nuc­lear advant­age, which is now an envy of the world.”

Why nuc­lear is con­sidered a `very expens­ive’ option

This June, the province laid out a 25­year road map for the elec­tri­city sys­tem that relies over­whelm­ingly on nuc­lear. It projects a massive 75 per cent increase in demand for power, the equi­val­ent of adding four­and­a­half Toron­tos to the grid. While there have been some invest­ments in bat­tery stor­age and hydro, most of this energy will come from refur­bish­ing the exist­ing fleet of react­ors and build­ing new ones, includ­ing one in Wes­leyville — on the shore of Lake Ontario to the east of the exist­ing Pick­er­ing and Dar­ling­ton plants — that would be the world’s biggest nuc­lear plant. In doing so, the province would triple its nuc­lear gen­er­a­tion, exceed­ing the entire elec­tri­city sys­tem’s out­put today.

“Ontario is put­ting a lot of eggs in a very expens­ive bas­ket,” said David Pickup, an energy ana­lyst at the Pem­bina Insti­tute and the author of a report high­light­ing the risks of the province’s nuc­lear build out……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.pressreader.com/article/281865829856772

January 14, 2026 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

New owners of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories have extensive nuclear weapons connections.

By hendricksonjones on January 10, 2026, https://concernedcitizens.net/2026/01/10/new-owners-of-canadian-nuclear-laboratories-have-extensive-nuclear-weapons-connections/

Nuclear weapons are an existential threat to life on Earth and need to be abolished.

Concerned Citizens and other civil society groups are concerned about the nuclear weapons connections of US-based multinational corporations contracted to operate Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. Some new facilities being built or proposed at Chalk River Laboratories are aimed at handling tritium and plutonium, both of which are key ingredients in nuclear warheads.

The current owner/operator of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, “Nuclear Laboratory Partners of Canada,” assumed ownership in December 2025 under a 6-year, multibillion dollar contract with the Government of Canada. It consists of three US-based corporations: BWXT, Amentum, and Battelle. A fourth corporation, Kinectrics, was recently acquired by BWXT.

Here is what Perplexity Pro told us about nuclear weapons connections of BWXT, Amentum and Batelle.

BWXT

BWXT has significant connections to U.S. nuclear weapons programs through its work with government agencies and defense contracts.bwxt+1​

Key Contracts

BWXT manages high-consequence nuclear operations for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which oversees the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. In 2025, it secured a $1.5 billion contract from NNSA to build a uranium enrichment facility for defense applications, including tritium production—a key component in nuclear weapons.reuters+2​

The company manufactures nuclear reactor components for U.S. Navy submarines and aircraft carriers, including Virginia-class and Columbia-class vessels, under multi-billion-dollar contracts like a $2.6 billion award in 2025. BWXT holds licenses for depleted uranium fabrication for defense and has handled highly enriched uranium from down-blended nuclear weapon cores.reddit+3​

Historical Context

BWXT was previously involved in tritium production for the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Subsidiaries like Nuclear Fuel Services support these government programs.dontbankonthebomb+1​

Amentum

Amentum has substantial nuclear weapons connections through U.S. and UK defense contracts for weapons facilities, plutonium processing, tritium operations, and national security sites.amentum+2​

U.S. Weapons Complex

Amentum manages the Pantex Plant (nuclear weapons assembly/disassembly) and Y-12 National Security Complex (uranium components for weapons) under a $28 billion NNSA contract via NPOne JV. It supports Los Alamos plutonium facilities, Savannah River pit production, and naval nuclear propulsion for ballistic missile submarines.amentum+3​

Plutonium and Remediation

The company decommissions plutonium-contaminated facilities at U.S. sites like Hanford’s Plutonium Finishing Plant and UK’s Low Level Waste Repository, plus Portsmouth uranium enrichment for weapons.amentum+2​

UK AWE (Atomic Weapons Establishment)Involvement

Amentum serves as Delivery Partner for AWE’s Enriched Uranium Components Programme at Aldermaston, handling enriched uranium for UK nuclear warheads, decommissioning gloveboxes, and program management.amentum+2​

Battelle

Battelle Memorial Institute has deep historical and ongoing connections to nuclear weapons programs, including direct contributions to the Manhattan Project and management of key NNSA national laboratories involved in weapons research.battelle+2​

Manhattan Project Role

During World War II, 400 Battelle researchers fabricated plutonium from uranium for atomic bomb cores. This work positioned Battelle as a leader in nuclear research, including extruding uranium fuel for early reactors at Oak Ridge.wikipedia+2​

National Labs Management

Battelle manages or co-manages eight DOE national labs central to nuclear security, such as Los Alamos National Laboratory (plutonium pits for weapons via Triad National Security, LLC), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Savannah River National Laboratory (nuclear materials management). These labs support stockpile stewardship, pit production, and nuclear deterrence under NNSA.battelle+4​

Additional Ties

Battelle developed nuclear fuel rods for naval reactors like the USS Nautilus and provided Environment, Health and Safety support at Pantex Plant, the primary site for weapons assembly/disassembly. It oversees chemical weapons demilitarization and biodefense tied to nuclear security missions.battelle+3​

References:

January 13, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Canada, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Canada’s double standard on tritium emissions

Frank Greening, 24 Dec 25

Here is an example of how Canada allows all kinds of tritium emissions while other nations are criticized for almost trivial releases.

Thus, it was reported today that the Japanese reactor at Fugen had a leak that spilled tritiated water. The amount released? A staggering 20 ml:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/radioactive-leak-at-nuclear-plant-in-japan/ar-AA1STz9p?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=694b0a7c4e6f4035800f6658f238a437&ei=131

By comparison a CANDU reactor at Bruce NGS suffered a steam generator release back in 2007. Steam generator tube leaks involve the escape of primary heat transport heavy water contaminated with tritium. In the case of Bruce Unit 8, a steam generator leak was detected in June 2007 but was allowed to continue until the first week of November. The monthly heavy water losses associated with this leak were as follows:

  June 2007:      484   kg

  July 2007:      2157 kg

  Aug 2007:      2832 kg

  Sept 2007:      4339 kg

  Oct 2007:       5036 kg

  Nov 2007:      1115 kg

Thus, in total, 15,963 kg of tritiated heavy water was lost to Lake Huron over a six-month period in 2007. This leak created a giant plume of tritiated water that was carried northwards by the prevailing currents towards the townships of Saugeen Shores, Port Elgin and Southampton. By September 2007, the concentration of tritium in the water intake of the Port Elgin Water Treatment Plant, 17 km north of the Bruce site, had increased by more than a factor of three compared to the normal levels of tritium in lake water at this location.

But remarkably this increase in the tritium concentration in the drinking water supply to residents to the north of the Bruce site was not the reason that the Unit 8 steam generator leak was finally fixed. On the contrary, the leak was plugged to prevent further loss of a valuable commodity – heavy water – which at $300/kg had already cost Bruce Power almost $5 million. And besides, thanks to the CNSC’s lax tritium emission standards, Bruce B’s waterborne emission action level for tritium is a staggering 130,000 Ci per month; thus the station was well below its regulatory limit in this regard. Nevertheless, one has to wonder how such a liberal action level is permitted when it allows a station to discharge tritiated water that is 5000 times higher than the Ontario Drinking Water Objective.

December 27, 2025 Posted by | Canada, radiation | Leave a comment

Studsvik Calls Extraordinary Meeting to Add UK Nuclear Executive Julia Pyke to Board

 Tipranks – Tue Dec 23, 2025

Studsvik AB ( (SE:SVIK) ) has issued an announcement.

Studsvik AB has called an extraordinary general meeting for January 23, 2026, in Stockholm, inviting shareholders to resolve on changes to the board of directors, including registration, proxy and attendance procedures in line with Swedish corporate governance rules. The nomination committee proposes expanding the board to seven members and appointing UK nuclear executive Julia Pyke, noted for her leadership of the Sizewell C and involvement in Hinkley Point C projects, with her remuneration aligned pro rata to the levels set at the 2025 annual general meeting, underscoring Studsvik’s strategic ambition to strengthen its board with international nuclear infrastructure expertise……… https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/markets-news/Tipranks/36764331/studsvik-calls-extraordinary-meeting-to-add-uk-nuclear-executive-julia-pyke-to-board/

December 27, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Exposure to protracted low-dose ionizing radiation and incident dementia in a cohort of Ontario nuclear power plant workers.

Brianna Frangione 1, Ian Colman, Franco Momoli, Estelle Davesne, Robert Talarico, Chengchun Yu, Paul J Villeneuve

Scand J Work Environ Health

Abstract

Objectives: Emerging evidence suggests that low-dose ionizing radiation increases the risk of neurodegenerative diseases. Past studies have relied on death data to identify dementia, and these are prone to under-ascertainment and complicate the estimation of health risks as individuals tend to live with dementia for many years following onset. We present findings from the first occupational cohort to investigate dementia risk from low-dose radiation using incident outcomes.

Methods: This is a retrospective cohort of 60 874 Ontario Nuclear Power Plant workers from the Canadian National Dose Registry. Personal identifiers were linked to Ontario population-based administrative health data. Incident dementias between 1996 and 2022 were identified using a validated algorithm based on physician, hospital, and prescription drug data. Individual-level annual estimates of whole-body external ionizing radiation were derived from personal workplace monitoring. The incidence of dementia among these workers was compared to a random sample of Ontario residents matched by sex, age, and residential area. Internal cohort analysis using Poisson and linear excess relative risk (ERR) models, adjusted for sex, attained age, calendar period, and neighborhood income quintile, were used to characterize the shape of the exposure-response curve between low-dose cumulative radiation (lagged 10 years) and incident dementia.

Results: There were 476 incident dementias and 867 028 person-years of follow-up. The mean whole-body lifetime accumulated exposure at the end of follow-up was 11.7 millisieverts (mSv). Workers with cumulative exposure between 50-100 mSv had an increased risk of dementia [RR 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-2.28] compared to those unexposed. Spline analysis suggested that the dose-response relationship was non-linear. The linear ERR per 100 mSv increase in exposure was 0.704 (95% CI 0.018-1.390).

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation increases the risk of incident dementia.

December 22, 2025 Posted by | Canada, radiation | Leave a comment

73 Organizations Send Joint Letter Calling on the Federal Government to Improve Nuclear Waste Oversight

https://wawa-news.com/index.php/2025/12/17/73-organizations-send-joint-letter-calling-on-the-federal-government-to-improve-nuclear-waste-oversight/

73 organizations representing a broad segment of Canadian society have sent a joint letter to the federal government urging more oversight of the nuclear industry and of nuclear waste projects.

In the letter, the groups urged the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Environment and Climate Change and of Energy and Natural Resources to exercise oversight of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s “Adaptive Phased Management Project” to transport, process, bury and eventually abandon all of Canada’s nuclear fuel waste at the NWMO’s selected site in the heart of Treaty 3 Territory in northwestern Ontario and its upcoming impact assessment process.

The groups expressed an overarching concern about the lack of federal oversight of this project since its inception in 2002.

More recently, the NWMO has made it known that they are seeking to have transportation of the radioactive wastes excluded from the project’s impact assessment process. But for 20 years the NWMO has been describing transportation as part of their project, and the Impact Assessment Act requires activities that are integral to – or, in the language of the Act “incidental” to – the project be included in the assessment.

The joint letter requests that the federal government provide immediate oversight and direction in four areas:

73 organizations representing a broad segment of Canadian society have sent a joint letter to the federal government urging more oversight of the nuclear industry and of nuclear waste projects.

In the letter, the groups urged the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Environment and Climate Change and of Energy and Natural Resources to exercise oversight of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s “Adaptive Phased Management Project” to transport, process, bury and eventually abandon all of Canada’s nuclear fuel waste at the NWMO’s selected site in the heart of Treaty 3 Territory in northwestern Ontario and its upcoming impact assessment process.

The groups expressed an overarching concern about the lack of federal oversight of this project since its inception in 2002.

More recently, the NWMO has made it known that they are seeking to have transportation of the radioactive wastes excluded from the project’s impact assessment process. But for 20 years the NWMO has been describing transportation as part of their project, and the Impact Assessment Act requires activities that are integral to – or, in the language of the Act “incidental” to – the project be included in the assessment.

The joint letter requests that the federal government provide immediate oversight and direction in four areas:

December 22, 2025 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Radioactive fertilizer and the nuclear industry

Gordon Edwards. 14 Dec 25

CORRECTION

 I wrote that 

“…selling raffinate as fertilizer goes on all the time from the world’s largest uranium refinery owned by Cameco, situated at Blind River on the north shore of Georgian Bay.”

This sentence is incorrect. Raffinate from Blind River is not used as fertilizer. I apologize for the error. 

Radioactive fertilizer from the Canadian uranium industry does not come from the Cameco Blind River refinery but from two other sources – the Cameco Key Lake uranium mill in Northern Saskatchewan, and the Cameo uranium dioxide conversion facility at Port Hope Ontario. 

Moreover, the material that is being used in radioactive fertilizer is not raffinate (i.e. refinery waste). It is ammonium sulphate that is recovered from the Key Lake uranium processing circuits and sold as fertilizer, together with a liquid by-product of Cameco’s Port Hope uranium dioxide conversion plant – an ammonium nitrate solution – that is sold to a local agricultural supply company for use in fertilizer production.

 The use of similar waste solutions from nuclear fuel facilities as fertilizer has been a concern in other jurisdictions as well. So at the present time, it is not raffinate but ammonium compounds that have been used in uranium processing that ends up in fertilizer. I apologize for not checking the facts much more carefully..

About radioactive fertilizer and the nuclear industry.

A lot of the  phosphate used for fertilizer comes from Florida where the phosphate ore is mined. That ore is contaminated with uranium and its decay products, especially radium. Radium disintegrates to produce radon gas Radon-222) and this builds up in an enclosed space, without adequate ventiliation, reaching an “equilibrium” in about one month. 

That’s why Florida was the first “hot spot” that alerted the US government to the major public health hazard posed by radon, which is estimated to kill about 20-30 thousand Americans every year. Every atom of radon comes from the disintegration of a radium atom, and in turn, every atom of radium started out as an atom of uranium.

Radioactive quilibrium means #becquerels of radium = #becquerels of radon.  One becquerel being one disintegration per second. In a simiar way, if pure radon gas is in an enclosed container, it will reach equilibrium with its four short-lived decay products in a couple of hours – so the radioactivity in the container is about five times greater than it was originally, as all the short-lived decay products have attained roughly the same level of radioactivity as the radon. 

When this radioactive fertilizer is used on tobacco crops, the radon from the soil and the fertilizer builds up under the thick canopy of tobacco leaves and hangs there for a time (radon being 7-8 times heavier than air). The radon atoms disintegrate to produce four airborne solid short lived decay products – polonium-218, bismuth-214, lead-214, polonium-214, all of which decay into lead-210 and polonium-210. [Note: the last two nuclides never reach equilibrium, unlike the first four.]

These radon decay products stick to the resinous (sticky) hairs on the undersides of the tobacco leaves and when the tobacco is harvested these radioactive materials are harvested along with the tobacco. By the time the tobacco is cured, rolled, and packaged, small quantities of lead-210 (22-year half-life) and its immediate successor polonium-210 are left in the tobacco/cigarettes for the unwitting smoker (or second-hand-smoke inhaler) to encounter.

When the cigarette is lit and the smoker draws on it, the temperature at the tip increases dramatically and it vaporizes the lead-210 and polonium-210 which is inhaled deep into the lungs, where polonium-210 sticks to and attacks the sensitive lung tissue with its very energetic alpha particles. 

Polonium-210 is a very damaging radionuclide which Los Alamos Labs reckons is about 250 billion time more toxic than hydrogen cyanide. (It’s what was used to murder Alexander Litvenenko in London at the “request” of Putin who was openly criticized by Litvenenko). 

Polonium-210 adds greatly to the cancer-causing characteristic of the tobacco residues lodged in the lung, making cigarettes smoke significantly more carcinogenic than it would otherwise be. (When the smoker is not inhaling, the lead-210/polonium-210 is wafted into the second-hand cigarette smoke as a respirable aerosol to endanger the health of those within sniffing distance,)

Inside the lung, some of the inhaled polonium-210 crosses the blood-air barrier end enters the bloodstream. Being solid, it attaches to pre-existing plaque build-up in the arteries of the smoker, usually near the arterial valves, where the alpha particle bombardment causes fibrosis of the arterial wall and valve, thus exacerbating the plaque build-up and increasing the restriction of blood flow, thereby contributing substantially to the incidence of heart attacks and strokes among smokers because of the alpha emitting polonium-210 in the plaque.

What you may not have heard is that voluminous sand-like radioactive waste from the uranium industry, called “raffinate” (leftovers from uranium refining), is also sold as fertilizer on the open market without any warnings about the radioactive content. The justification for this nefarious practice seems to be, that since “natural” phosphate from Florids is used to make fertilizer, and it is clearly radioactive (due to the radium-radon chain), and since raffinate from a uranium refinery is not much higher in radioactive content, then what the heck, we (the uranium industry) may as well turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse by selling the radioactive raffinate waste as fertilizer.

Extensive radioactive contamination – involving uranium raffinate – of the homes, schools, roadways, ravines, and the public beach in the town of Port Hope  (prior to 1985) – has led to a $2.6 billion radioactive environmental cleanup of the town (by the federal government) resulting in over a million cubic metres (about a million tonnes) of radioactibve waste to be stored for 500 years in a gigantic earthen mound just north of the town. The subsequent fate of the still-radioactive waste will be decided at that time. 

This practice of selling raddinate as fertilizer goes on all the time from the world’s largest uranium refinery owned by Cameco, situated at Blind River on the north shore of Georgian Bay. The Blind RIver plant turns uranium mill concentrates from Saskatchewan, Australia and South Africa, called “yellowcake” (mostly U3O8), into a product called “uranium trioxide” UO3. At that point the raffinate is the waste product, contaminated with radium. That’s what’s sold for fertilizer. 

The trioxide then goes to Port Hope Ontario, where it is chemically converted into UO2 (uranium dioxide) for domestic use, about 15% of the total, and into UF6 (uranium hexafluoride or “hex”) for export to enrichment plants outside of Canada where the concentration of U-235 is increased to the level required by the customer.

At the enrichment plant, the “hex” is turned into a gas at a fairly low temperature so that the heavier U-238 atoms can be separated from the lighter U-235 atoms, resulting in an enriched uranium product that goes out the front door while the voluminous discarded U-238 (called depleted uranium or “DU”) goes out the back door. 

For low enrichment in light water nuclear power plants, about 85% of the refined uranium is discarded as depleted uranium. The DU has important military uses, and a few civilian uses, but for the most part DU is part of the radioactive legacy of the nuclear age wth a half-life of 4.5 billion years.

Besides using DU in conventional bullets, shells, missiles, tanks, et cetera, used in the former Yugoslavia and in other conflicts, resulting in a battlefield litters with radioactive waste, the military also uses DU as “target rods” in plutonium production reactors to breed plutonium for nuclear warheads. In addition, the military uses DU metal in almost all nuclear warheads as a way of significantly multiplying the explosive power of the warhead by a sizable factor. These weapons are called “fission-fusion-fission” weapons, 

The first fission is from a small ball of plutonium (usually with a tritium “spark-plug” inside) whose sole purpose is to ignite the fusion reaction by raising it to a temperature of about 100 million degrees. When fusion occurs, extremely energetic neutrons are goven off which fission the U-238 that has been used for that exact purpose in the construction of the warhead. That third stage, the fission of U-238, provides the bulk of the explosive power and the lion’s share of the radioactive fallout.

It is a sad story from beginning to end.

And, to add to this tale of woe, Canada currently has about 220 million tonnes of radioactive waste (tailings) stored at or near the surface from uranium milling (the operation that produces yellowcake) along with about 167 million tonnes of radioactive “waste rock”. Yet the Canadian authorities and others routinely and unabashedly declare that nuclear power is a “clean” source of energy and for the most part, Canadian academic scientists and sientific bodies say not a peep to the contrary.

December 16, 2025 Posted by | Canada, radiation, Reference | Leave a comment

Ottawa medical manufacturer giving up nuclear licence after defying regulator

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission ordered Best Theratronics to comply over a year ago.

COMMENT.There are questions about lack of financial guarantee in the case where the plant in Kanata is decommissioned, i.e. cost of cleaning up the radioactive materials at the site. Next step is the CNSC is waiting for the decommissioning preliminary plan. The owner is moving the business to the U.S. and India, he says.

Campbell MacDiarmid · CBC News · Dec 14, 2025, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-medical-manufacturer-giving-up-nuclear-licence-after-defying-regulator-9.7014006

A storied Kanata medical manufacturer is in the process of relinquishing its nuclear licence, more than a year after Canada’s nuclear regulator placed it under orders for violating the terms of that certificate.

On Friday, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) confirmed that Best Theratronics is in the process of offloading the nuclear material it used to manufacture cancer treatment devices.

“Best Theratronics Limited has obtained an export licence to ship its Cobalt 60 sealed sources, as well as an export licence to ship its Cesium 137 sealed sources,” said Andrew McAllister, director of the CNSC’s nuclear processing facilities division, during a public meeting.

Best Theratronics was once a Crown agency that created the world’s first cancer treatment machine, but it has struggled in recent years under the private ownership of overseas businessman Krishnan Suthanthiran.

Suthanthiran says he has lost millions of dollars since buying the company from MDS Nordion in 2007. More recently, the company faced a protracted labour dispute that saw workers strike for nearly 10 months to demand better pay.

Last November, the CNSC issued orders against Best Theratronics after noticing that its financial guarantee had lapsed. The industry regulator ordered the company to make $1.8 million available to cover any cleanup costs in the event that its site was decommissioned.

But Suthanthiran never complied, telling CBC in October that the CNSC was in the wrong and that he lacked the funds to restore the guarantee.

Instead, Suthanthiran said he would give up his nuclear licence and shift the company toward activities that don’t involve nuclear materials.

CBC asked Suthanthiran whether staff at Best Theratronics would would be out of work as a result of the company surrendering its nuclear licence.

In an email, he wrote that he was being forced “to relocate to the USA and India” and that would result in “the loss of 200 high-tech jobs.” He also cited the high yearly cost of having the nuclear licence.

The CNSC has required Best Theratronics to submit monthly reports relating to its progress in offloading its nuclear material. But the company missed its December deadline, submitting its report several days later, McAllister said.

Manny Subramanian, a representative of Best Theratronics, told the CNSC the delay was due to Suthanthiran’s absence.

“One particular report, you know, we ended up sending about a day late or two days late because Krish, the president of the company, was travelling. We couldn’t get ahold of him,” Subramanian said.

The next deadline facing Best Theratronics comes Tuesday when it’s due to submit a preliminary plan for decommissioning its plant in Kanata.

December 16, 2025 Posted by | Canada, safety | Leave a comment

American-owned consortium assumes control of Canada’s premier nuclear research facility.

THE GLOBE AND MAIL, Matthew McClearn, 12 Dec 25

An American-owned consortium has assumed responsibility for managing Canada’s premier nuclear research facility, Chalk River Laboratories, along with cleaning up the federal government’s sizable inventory of radioactive waste spread across the country.

After a three-month delay, Nuclear Laboratory Partners of Canada Inc. formally took control on Thursday of the organization that runs Chalk River, known as Canadian Nuclear Laboratories.

CNL manages the assets and liabilities of a federal Crown corporation called Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. under an arrangement Ottawa describes as a “government-owned, contractor-operated” model………………………………………………….

Earlier this year, AECL said the consortium’s contract is worth about $1.2-billion annually. It has been called the federal government’s largest contract at the moment, although key federal authorities – including the Treasury Board Secretariat, Auditor-General and AECL – have been unwilling or unable to confirm that. The term of the contract will be six years but it can be extended for up to another 14 years.

The consortium’s American ownership has provoked controversy. Since assuming office, Prime Minister Mark Carney has espoused a Buy Canadian policy – a key part of his government’s response to mounting conflict with its dominant trading partner, the United States.

Corey Tochor, a Conservative member of Parliament for Saskatoon-University, accused AECL of “selling out our nuclear secrets” to American interests, during the first of three scheduled hearings held before the House of Commons standing committee on natural resources to examine the consortium’s American ownership.

“What we have real deep concerns [about] is that we’re letting a foreign country manage our medical isotopes,” Mr. Tochor said.

Earlier this month, Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke characterized the awarded contract as an “elbows-down” approach that left Americans in control of Canadian intellectual property…………………………………………………………….

The American-owned consortium is led by a large nuclear specialty manufacturer focused on military equipment and nuclear fuel called BWX Technologies Inc…………………………………..

The U.S.-led consortium takes over from another partnership known as Canadian National Energy Alliance, which held the contract for a decade. Its members recently included Montreal-based AtkinsRéalis Group Inc. and two American companies, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. and Fluor Corp………………………….

The American consortium was declared the winner of a competitive procurement process in June and had originally been scheduled to take over in September. The transfer was delayed pending a review by the Competition Bureau, which is responsible for enforcing federal antitrust rules. Late last month the Competition Bureau issued a “no-action letter” confirming it will not oppose the contract, which allowed the transfer to proceed. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-nuclear-laboratory-partners-chalk-river-laboratories-cnl-atomic-energy/

December 15, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

On the road with radioactive waste: Canada’s roads are not safe.

Transporting nuclear waste is inherently dangerous because it involves moving materials that remain hazardous to human health and the environment for centuries to millennia. Even under ideal conditions, risks cannot be fully eliminated — accidents, mechanical failures, weather events, security threats, or human error can all result in the release or exposure of radioactive materials.

Unlike other hazardous goods, radioactive waste cannot simply be cleaned up with standard emergency response measures; contamination can render land unusable, water unsafe, and ecosystems damaged for generations. Every shipment is a high-stakes event, and the impacts of even a single failure could be irreversible for the communities and lands along the transport route.


by Mayara Gonçalves e Lima,  December 11, 2025

Canada is decommissioning a nuclear power plant for the first time, marking a new chapter in the country’s nuclear history. The decommissioning of Gentilly-1 in Bécancour, Quebec — on the St. Lawrence River in Wabanaki territory — is a milestone in the country’s reckoning with its radioactive legacy, setting a precedent that will influence how future projects are approached across Canada.

The implications extend far beyond Quebec. How Gentilly-1 is dismantled, how its waste is transported, and how oversight is conducted will set precedents for future decommissioning projects across the country.

For New Brunswick, these decisions will shape the expectations, policies, and protections in place when it comes time to decommission Point Lepreau — a process that will carry even higher stakes for this province.

The threat of radioactive waste on the move

Gentilly-1 recently entered its active dismantling phase, with the removal of remaining radioactive and structural components, including equipment, piping, cabling, and control panels from the service and turbine buildings.

Under the current dismantling plan, the resulting radioactive waste is expected to be transferred to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories at Chalk River, Ontario, for interim storage.

This planned transfer follows an earlier shipment of Gentilly-1 used fuel to Chalk River that occurred without publicity or demonstrated compliance with regulatory requirements.

Transporting nuclear waste is inherently dangerous because it involves moving materials that remain hazardous to human health and the environment for centuries to millennia. Even under ideal conditions, risks cannot be fully eliminated — accidents, mechanical failures, weather events, security threats, or human error can all result in the release or exposure of radioactive materials.

Unlike other hazardous goods, radioactive waste cannot simply be cleaned up with standard emergency response measures; contamination can render land unusable, water unsafe, and ecosystems damaged for generations. Every shipment is a high-stakes event, and the impacts of even a single failure could be irreversible for the communities and lands along the transport route.

These risks are compounded by the fact that current storage solutions for Gentilly-1 nuclear waste are only temporary. Neither Canada nor any country in the world has a permanent solution for radioactive waste — meaning the waste will eventually need to be moved again, effectively doubling both the risks and costs associated with its handling and transportation.

Bloc Québécois urges halt to radioactive waste shipments to Chalk River

On October 17, 2025, amid growing national debate over nuclear waste transport, the Bloc Québécois formally called on Federal Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson to immediately halt the transfer of radioactive materials from Gentilly-1 to the Chalk River Laboratories.

To reinforce their position, the Bloc Québécois has launched a petition allowing the public to voice their opposition to the project. It underscores the environmental risks of transporting radioactive waste and storing it so close to a major drinking water source, as well as the lack of meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities.

The Bloc’s petition also highlights a separate proposal for the Chalk River site: the construction of a nuclear waste landfill known as the Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF). This project also has become a major source of controversy. The Kebaowek First Nation, along with more than 140 municipalities in Quebec and Ontario, has voiced strong opposition to placing large volumes of radioactive waste near the Kichi Sibi (Ottawa River) and its tributaries.

Whistleblowers raise alarm over secretive transport practices

More than 60 groups, with the Passamaquoddy Nation among them, have endorsed a letter sent to the Prime Minister and key members of Cabinet on December 2, 2025, sounding the alarm about the federal government’s management of radioactive waste transport in Canada.

The signatories state that they are “blowing the whistle” on a practice that has remained largely hidden from public view: the movement of radioactive waste along public roads, bridges, and through First Nations territories without consultation, notification, or parliamentary oversight.

The letter focuses on Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ decision to consolidate federally-owned radioactive waste at the Chalk River Laboratories site. The signatories emphasize that Chalk River is an unsuitable and inherently vulnerable location due to its proximity to the Ottawa River and its exposure to seismic activity.

In response to these escalating concerns, the signatories call for three concrete actions: an immediate cessation on shipments of radioactive waste to Chalk River; a full ban on the import of radioactive waste; and a strategic assessment under section 95 of the Impact Assessment Act to evaluate the cumulative and long-term risks of transporting radioactive waste on public highways.

Such an assessment, they argue, is essential to ensuring informed, democratic decision-making and to guiding future reviews of nuclear facilities, reactor decommissioning projects, and federal waste policies.

Canada’s radioactive waste crisis demands action

Canada urgently needs to halt the practice of transporting radioactive waste over public roads, through municipalities, across public bridges, and over Indigenous territories without meaningful consultation, public notification, or clear regulatory justification.

These shipments — often occurring quietly and without community awareness — pose risks that are collectively borne by the public while decisions are made by a small number of government and industry actors.

The lack of transparency erodes trust and fails to meet even the basic standards of democratic governance, environmental protection, or respect for Indigenous rights. Communities have the right to know when hazardous materials are moving through their homelands, and they deserve a real voice in determining whether and how such shipments occur.

The Age of Nuclear Waste is only beginning, and Canada is unprepared to manage the growing challenges of transporting, importing, and exporting radioactive materials.

As reactors age, decommissioning accelerates, and new nuclear projects emerge, waste shipments will only increase — but federal oversight remains fragmented, inconsistent, and insufficiently accountable to the public.

Without a coherent national policy grounded in precaution, transparency, and genuine consultation — especially with First Nations whose territories are routinely crossed — Canada risks locking in a legacy of poorly governed radioactive waste movements.

Canada must act now to establish responsible oversight and build a safer, more accountable framework before today’s shortcomings become tomorrow’s crises.

At times like these, we’re reminded that every chapter of Canada’s nuclear history carries lasting responsibilities: our nuclear past has left behind a trail of toxic legacy that no technology, no policy, and no promise can safely contain for the timescales required.

Mayara Gonçalves e Lima works with the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group Inc., focusing on nuclear energy. Their work combines environmental advocacy with efforts to ensure that the voice of the Passamaquoddy Nation is heard and respected in decisions that impact their land, waters, and future.

December 13, 2025 Posted by | Canada, safety | Leave a comment

After Canadian Police Raid Homes, Six Peace Activists Face Charges.

The event was sponsored by Israel-based defence contractor Elbit Systems, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Hensoldt, Saab and Gastops. All of these firms are directly involved in supplying drones, munitions, targeting systems and surveillance technology used in the genocidal assault on the population of Gaza. Notably, Ottawa-based contractor Gastops is the sole supplier of critical engine sensors for the F-35 jets that Israel uses to drop 2,000-pound bombs.

By Pierre Lajeunesse, World Socialist Web Site, December 2, 2025, https://popularresistance.org/after-canadian-police-raid-homes-six-peace-activists-face-charges/

Activists With World Beyond War Raided Over Protest Against Arms Fair.

The World Socialist Web Site and the Socialist Equality Party (Canada) unequivocally condemn these raids and charges. They represent a serious escalation of state repression aimed at criminalizing anti-war and anti-genocide dissent.

London, Ontario police carried out coordinated pre-dawn raids on November 25 against four homes across southern Ontario, targeting members of the anti-war and Palestinian-solidarity group World Beyond War (WBW). The raids bring to six the number of peace activists charged in relation to a protest of more than 100 people against the Best Defence Conference in London at the end of October, an arms-industry gathering attended by Israeli-linked weapons manufacturers and Canadian military officials.

The sweeping operation saw officers burst into homes at 6 a.m., frighten children, seize personal electronic devices and haul activists hours away from their communities.

The World Socialist Web Site and the Socialist Equality Party (Canada) unequivocally condemn these raids and charges. They represent a serious escalation of state repression aimed at criminalizing anti-war and anti-genocide dissent under conditions where the Canadian government is deeply implicated in US-led wars around the world and Israel’s genocide in Gaza. All charges must be dropped immediately.

On the morning of October 21, WBW and other anti-war activists blockaded entrances to the RBC Place convention centre in London, attempting to prevent arms dealers and military officials from entering the weapons conference.

The event was sponsored by Israel-based defence contractor Elbit Systems, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Hensoldt, Saab and Gastops. All of these firms are directly involved in supplying drones, munitions, targeting systems and surveillance technology used in the genocidal assault on the population of Gaza. Notably, Ottawa-based contractor Gastops is the sole supplier of critical engine sensors for the F-35 jets that Israel uses to drop 2,000-pound bombs.

Protesters denounced the corporations for supplying a government engaged in mass killings and demanded that the Canadian government impose an arms embargo on Israel. For this, the organizers of the protest are being treated as criminals.

Just over a month after the protest, on November 25, the London Police Service Street Crime Unit, normally deployed against drug trafficking and “organized crime,” executed search warrants at homes in London, Hamilton, Marmora and Owen Sound. The items seized reveal the political nature of the operation: computers, laptops, hard drives, phones, USB sticks, two-way radios, protest placards and even a “Free Palestine” wreath taken from one activist’s door. Police also paraded before the media the discovery of purported “plans indicating how to cause property damage” and “documents describing police Public Order Unit tactics.”

In its own account, WBW describes officers waking families before dawn, crowding into small homes, harassing parents, disturbing disabled residents and seizing every electronic device in sight. These were intimidation raids carried out to send a message that opposition to war will be punished.

Those arrested and charged include WBW Canada organizer Rachel Small, longtime London activist and Western University professor David Heap, Hamilton activist Patricia Mills and Toronto-based organizer Diana Thorpe, whom police now claim is “wanted.” Earlier in October, charges were also laid against Nicholas Vincent Amor and Pamela Reano.

The charges include mischief over $5,000, conspiracy, resisting arrest, disguise with intent and “obstructing a peace officer,” the standard prosecutorial arsenal used to intimidate protest movements.

Speaking to CBC News about the excessive charges, Heap noted, “I think the police response is overreaching, and that’s because they’re trying to intimidate people from standing against war industries … more generally, and it won’t work.” Responding to police claims about property damage, Heap explained, “I think we should be thinking about [how] these war industries are used to kill civilians in many parts of the world. Property damage pales in comparison.”

The London police statements are shot through with politically-motivated exaggerations and insinuations. A handful of activists allegedly damaged electronic locks or threw paint, acts that are insignificant next to the industrial-scale violence of the corporations and military officials being protected by the police, companies profiting from the arming of the Zionist regime in Israel as it commits genocide, and Canadian military officers providing training, intelligence and logistical support.

The London raids form part of a broader pattern of repression unfolding across Canada.

The “Peace 11” frame-up in Toronto in 2023 targeted protesters who splashed washable red paint on the front of an Indigo bookstore to highlight CEO Heather Reisman’s support for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The police conducted violent no-knock raids, seized electronics and handcuffed family members, while the corporate media smeared the protesters as antisemites for opposing genocide.

The increasing brazenness of the authorities was underscored in a further incident last month, when 95-year-old legal scholar Richard Falk, a former special rapporteur for the UN on human rights in the Palestinian Territories, was detained for three hours at Pearson Airport in Toronto. Falk was attending a “people’s tribunal” in Ottawa aimed at exposing Canada’s complicity in Israel’s imperialist-backed genocide of the Palestinians.

In Quebec, longtime anti-war writer and NDP leadership candidate Yves Engler stood trial last week on charges of “harassing” a Montreal hate-crimes detective after he was told he would be arrested for criticism of a Zionist provocateur on social media. Engler’s alleged crime is encouraging his supporters to join in an email writing campaign to the police demanding that the spurious charges be dropped. The fact that this escalated into a criminal prosecution underscores the drive by police and prosecutors to criminalize any protest against imperialist war.

The federal Liberal government and its provincial counterparts, Liberal, Conservative, Coalition Avenir Quebec, and NDP alike, have fuelled this climate. Prime Minister Mark Carney has continued the Trudeau government’s backing of Israel’s slaughter in Gaza with weapons, diplomatic cover and intelligence support. It was only after immense pressure that Ottawa cast a largely symbolic UN vote for a “ceasefire,” while simultaneously affirming Israel’s “right” to complete its war aims.

The Liberal government can tolerate no opposition to war under conditions in which it is enforcing a massive increase in military spending unprecedented since World War II. With the backing of the New Democrats and trade unions, Carney’s government just passed a budget containing over $80 billion in additional military spending over the coming five years aimed at equipping Canadian imperialism to secure its share of the spoils in a rapidly escalating third world war.

The Ontario NDP, meanwhile, hounded legislator Sarah Jama and kicked her from its caucus for denouncing Israel’s apartheid regime. This gave fuel to a campaign by the right-wing Ontario government of Tory Premier Doug Ford to ban her from speaking in the legislature until she recanted. Jama was subsequently blocked from standing as a candidate for the ONDP in elections earlier this year.

Under these conditions, police forces have been emboldened to treat anti-war protests as a threat to national security. The raids on WBW members follow the logic of Canadian imperialism’s warmongering, in which war abroad requires repression at home.

The lessons of the past two years of anti-genocide and anti-war protests in Canada and internationally must be drawn. Despite enormous public opposition to Israel’s genocidal assault on the Gaza Palestinians, and despite countless appeals to Liberal cabinet ministers, NDP MPs, municipal officials and international bodies, the slaughter and dispossession continue unabated. Protest alone, especially when subordinated to moral appeals to the very governments and corporate CEOs arming the Zionist state, cannot halt imperialist war and genocide.

The working class requires its own independent organizations of struggle. Rank-and-file committees must be established in workplaces, campuses and neighborhoods to unite workers against war, austerity and repression. These committees must be guided by a socialist program that links opposition to militarism with the fight against the capitalist system that breeds war.

The criminalization of anti-war activism flows from the preparations of the ruling class for a global conflict against Russia and China. The fight to defend the WBW activists and oppose war and genocide is inseparable from the struggle to build an international revolutionary political movement of the working class against capitalism’s descent into barbarism.

December 7, 2025 Posted by | Canada, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Opponents ‘vehemently disagree’ on omitting transport from nuclear assessment.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization says its initial project description is to cover the waste repository project only, not the transportation of radioactive materials.

Matt Prokopchuk, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Dec 3, 2025, https://www.nwonewswatch.com/local-journalism-initiative-lji/opponents-vehemently-disagree-on-omitting-transport-from-nuclear-assessment-11567432

IGNACE — The transportation of radioactive materials should be included in the impact assessment for a proposed nuclear waste repository, environmental groups say.

But the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which is working to develop the deep geological repository in the Revell Lake area between Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, says existing regulations govern that aspect of the plan.

“They see it as falling within that framework and not needing further examination,” Wendy O’Connor, a volunteer and spokesperson with the We the Nuclear Free North coalition told Newswatch. “And, of course, we vehemently disagree.”

Carolyn Fell, the NWMO’s manager of impact assessment communications, told Newswatch that its initial project description to the federal Impact Assessment Agency of Canada “pertains to new projects and not activities that are already subject to regulation and licensing standards.”

“The transportation of used nuclear fuel is jointly regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Transport Canada,” Fell added.


The initial project description for the proposed deep geological repository, or DGR, describes a project’s need and purpose, offers an assessment of potential impacts, and proposals to avoid and mitigate them.

The years-long impact assessment process will start with the NWMO submitting the description to, and its public posting by, the federal assessment regulator.

That process, according to the NWMO, is expected to last into 2030, and will include soliciting public feedback. The assessment regulator greenlighting the waste management organization’s proposal is one essential piece for construction of the DGR to start.

The initial submission, Fell said, is expected “sometime in the near future.”

Environmental groups concerned about the hauling of high-level radioactive waste hundreds and thousands of kilometres from Canada’s nuclear plants into Northwestern Ontario, say the existing regulations in place cover the transportation of nuclear waste that is much less dangerous — and a lot less of it.

Should the DGR be built and accept the high-level waste, O’Connor said, it will amount to two to three loads of the spent fuel being transported by truck, and possibly train, per day for 50 or more years.

“Something like this has never happened in Canada,” she said. “Something like this has never been proposed or carried out.”


That, said Dodie LeGassick, the nuclear lead for Environment North, means more attention should be paid to this aspect of the entire proposal — by project proponents and the public.

“It takes the emphasis off transportation,” she said of omitting the issue from the initial project description. “Where, in fact, all along the routes it is the major concern.”

If you’re living along the route, you’re not as concerned about the DGR site as you are about the train or the trucks coming through.”

Fell said existing regulations around nuclear waste transport are “very stringent,” adding that “ninety-three per cent of shipments are moved on roads under strict regulations that ensure they pose very little threat.”

O’Connor said comparing what’s on the roads nowadays to what is being proposed is “disingenuous.”

“The scale is exponentially bigger than anything they’ve done before.”

O’Connor said she and her colleagues were surprised to learn the initial project description wouldn’t include transportation.

“When (the NWMO has) given information on the transportation component, they’ve always presented that as part and parcel of the project as a whole, which was appropriate,” she said. “They gave information as they had it on the trucking, the containment materials, et cetera, which we’ve looked at and sometimes critiqued.”

“So, we’re used to seeing this as a package, and the transportation, as we see it, is integral to the project as a whole — which also includes the deep geological repository and its surface facilities.”

O’Connor said her group is encouraging people to sign up with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to receive emails about project information, including public comment periods, and to make their concerns heard.

December 7, 2025 Posted by | Canada, safety | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »